The present invention relates to a tool that interfaces with a vehicle's computer, and more particularly to a tool which communicates with an on board diagnostic computer (i.e., OBD), displays a plurality of relevant information on one screen, allows switching between modes with a push of a single button, and reduces the number of user intervention to accomplish a function of the tool.
Prior art scan tools that communicate with the OBD are available in the marketplace. For example, there is the scan tool manufactured by Kal-Equip which is a division of Actron Manufacturing Company and the EZ-SCAN scanner from AUTO-XRAY. In this regard, the these scan tools are capable of linking with the vehicle's computer through a connector typically located at the footwell on the driver's side. However, these prior art scan tools are cumbersome and inefficiently interfaces with the user.
For example, the prior art scan tools including those mentioned above generally comprise a menu. The menu provides the user an option to enter a variety of sub-menus. At which point, the user must enter lower layers of submenus to locate a desired submenu. For example, FIG. 1 illustrates a flow chart of one of the prior art scan tools. The flow chart illustrates the steps required to display Diagnostic Trouble Codes and Pending Codes. In FIG. 1, the first step to view the pending codes or trouble codes is to scan the vehicle. Second, the user must select “DATA” from a list of choices (i.e., monitor or data). Third, the user must select “Trouble Codes” from a list of choices (i.e., 1) Trouble Codes, 2) Operational Data, 3) Customize Data, 4) Clear Codes, and 5) Freeze Frame). Fourth, user must select “ENTER” to display the Trouble Codes Menu which provides choices to display Trouble Codes or Pending Codes. At this point, the user may select between viewing only Trouble Codes or only Pending Codes but not both at the same time. As can be seen from this example, the user must proceed through numerous submenus to display pending codes. Once the user views pending codes, the user must back out from viewing the pending codes to view the trouble codes and cannot view the trouble codes and the pending codes at the same time.
Moreover, to change to a different sub menu such as viewing Readiness Tests (i.e., monitor status), the user must exit out from the sub menu related to viewing trouble codes to step 2 above (i.e., choose between monitor and data). Thereafter, the user must choose “Monitor” then Readiness Test. In other words, this illustrates that in the prior art scan tools, the tool requires that the user manually exit out of a sub menu (e.g., viewing pending codes) prior to entering a different sub menu (e.g., readiness tests).
In summary, by way of example and not limitation, prior art scan tools have the following deficiencies: first, the prior art scan tools do not display all of the relevant information (e.g., pending codes, trouble codes and monitor status as well as other information to be discussed below) on one display; second, prior art scan tools require the user to manually exit out of a sub menu then manually enter into a different sub menu; and third, prior art scan tools require the user to proceed through a plurality of layers of sub menus prior to viewing the relevant information (e.g., pending codes).